Monday, February 11, 2013

Isn't this special? Indiana high school students want their prom not to be a gay old time

WTWO-TV Terre Haute, Ind. reports on doings at Sullivan High School in a town south of their city where a group of students is trying to arrange to hold an alternative senior prom at which no gay students or couples will be invited:

"We want to make the public see that we love the homosexuals, but we don't think it's right nor should it be accepted," said a local student...

Diana Medley is a special education teacher in town. She doesn't believe anyone is born gay.

"I believe that it was life circumstances and they chose to be that way; God created everyone equal," said Medley.

"Homosexual students come to me with their problems, and I don't agree with them, but I care about them. It's the same thing with my special needs kids, I think God puts everyone in our lives for a reason," said Madley.

"'So the same goes for gays? Do you think they have a purpose in life?' No I honestly don't. Sorry, but I don't...."

I'm sure Sullivan's gay students appreciate the comparison between them and "specical needs kids."

Posted at 01:50:30 PM

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

I'll comment on the incompetent teacher later when I have more time. But first...

"I'm sure Sullivan's gay students appreciate the comparison between them and "special needs kids."

As the dad of a kid with special needs, I find that the vast majority of kids are amazingly accepting of him and his peers. I'm questioning Diana Medley's fitness to teach kids with special needs.

And I'm with Wendy and hayesmary -- neither group deserves to be insulted. I'm doing backflips trying to come up with an explanation on how Mr. Zorn _isn't _ insulting special needs kids with either his statement or his explanation.

ZORN REPLY -- The suggestion is that being gay is equivalent to having a learning disability, which is, as noted, bizarre, similar to equating being gay to having a physical disability.
Feel free to post your interpretation of Medley's remarks and why you don't think its analogy betrays a profound ignorance.

It *shouldn't* be insulting to be compared to a special needs child, but I'm quite certain the teacher in this story was making a negative comparison. It's possible to take offense to that comparison without endorsing the idea that special needs kids are inferior, just like it's possible to take offense to the claim that Obama is a Muslim without endorsing the idea that Muslims are inferior.

She does seem to be saying special needs kids should not come to the "no gay" prom. I mean, God made them, but they have no purpose in life, so they shouldn't be at the prom. Also no dorks at the prom. They have no purpose in life. No short people. No fat people. No people with fat a----. No people with big noses. No Jews. No Catholics. No leftists. No leftist symps. And no wing-nuts either. No one with any outspoken views.

And most of all, no telekinetics, so Carrie White, you can burn in hell.

The only problem people like Diana Medley have with gay people is that they exist. I can sympathize. Gay people insist on taking up space and giving off heat and reflecting light, just like they were normal or something, and it's just so annoying.

So attention, all gay people: Simply teleport yourself to an alternate universe as soon as it's convenient, and you will be accepted by the Medleys of the world.

Folks, let's not lose sight of the fact that the comparison came from the teacher, not Eric. If we don't like it when political parties take the words of others out of context, we need to show consistency.

ZORN REPLY -- The suggestion is that being gay is equivalent to having a learning disability, which is, as noted, bizarre, similar to equating being gay to having a physical disability.
Feel free to post your interpretation of Medley's remarks and why you don't think its analogy betrays a profound ignorance.

Well, I know what Medley said was wrong and said as much in my comment -- that she seems ill-suited to teach kids with special needs and that neither group deserves to be insulted. I think we're just waiting on you to clarify that you yourself weren't insulting kids with special needs.

Eric, when you say, "I'm sure Sullivan's gay students appreciate the comparison between them and 'special needs kids,'" it sounds like you think the gay students should be insulted by the comparison. Is that what you meant? I think it's sad that Medley seems to think of her students in terms of what they bring to her life rather than thinking of them as people, but I'm not comfortable with your statement, either.

"Homosexual students come to me with their problems, and I don't agree with them, but I care about them. It's the same thing with my special needs kids, I think God puts everyone in our lives for a reason," said Madley."

Apparently, also, it's all about HER. No, it's not that some kids "chose" to be gay so they could be bullied, excluded, and ostracized, or that some kids have "special needs" - and she calls herself a "Special Education" teacher? - but somehow these unfortunates are only on earth to test her. Or maybe God put these people on earth so people like her could learn tolerance & compasson - but I guess God failed there, big time.

--If people want to have their own prom events then let them have at it. I had outgrown school-sponsored events by my junior year of high school and my friends and I did our own thing. I can't criticize others who do the same even if the reasons for doing it seem a little silly to me. I'm all for straight, gay, in-between, and none-of-the above folks living their lives as they see fit without interference from anyone else, which includes associating or disassociating freely as well. It's unbecoming for a teacher to be involved in this and I think it's fair to criticize her for dividing her students though. Students dividing themselves? Well, that's how life goes. Being excluded teaches you a life lesson and so does regretting your actions years after you excluded peers for petty reasons.

I like how Medley claims that "homosexual students come to [her] with their problems".

Student: Ms. Medley, could I talk you about a problem?

Medley: Why, sure, honey.

Student: Well, you see, it's about a teacher. She claims to be a Christian, but she's awfully judgmental. She doesn't even think gays or special needs kids have a purpose. Don't you think she should remove the log from her own eye?

Medley: Well, I, well, now you just go and pray and ask God to forgive your sins you horrible abomination!

Something like that?

And lexi, no Eric did not step in a "big pile of PC do-do". He stepped into one of his own blind spots. It happens - we all have them. I'd like to think that this might prompt him to reflect why he wouldn't find it equally offensive for both LGBT and special needs students to be told they have no purpose, rather than worrying about the bizarreness of the oomparison between the two.

I'm more interested in why she thinks there are special needs students and why she has a job:

"I believe that it was life circumstances and they chose to be that way; God created everyone equal,"

If God creates everyone "equal" -- then why are there children who need special ed teachers? Clearly either they chose it or their parents made them that way. Seems like it must be hard for her to do her job.

" I had outgrown school-sponsored events by my junior year of high school and my friends and I did our own thing."

Here's an example of something that I think is a serious hole in your thinking, one having to do with (wait for it) power dynamics. Yes, they exist, and they have real-world effects whether you choose to acknowledge them or not. To the extent that you deny them, your thinking is impoverished. Anyway, I've noticed that you often make comments along the lines of "this is the way it was for me, so that's the way it should/will be for everyone." In this case, you and your friends choosing to do your own thing is 100% not the same as an entire category of students being systematically ostracized. And no amount of "hey, it toughens you up, and everyone has regrets" will make it equivalent.

Medley also said: "We don't agree with it [gays attending prom] and it's offensive to us,"

I know Indiana is almost considered an extension of the South in political matters, but this "teacher" is still over the line. Any of the above comments posted publicly by this women would be grounds for dismissal in my district.

"I think God puts everyone in our lives for a reason,"

But, she believes gays, and by extension special needs students, don't have purpose, a reason to exist? They're just here to challenge Medley and others like her? How condescending can you get? I also don't believe she should be exposed to a population she believes are deficient to herself and others.

What I'm saying is that if people want to split off and do their own thing for whatever reason, it's none of my concern as long as they aren't bothering anyone else. And bothering means actively interfering with someone's rights and not simply choosing to not associate with them. Declaring something none of my business and saying I wouldn't criticize anyone's choice to associate freely, is not the same as approving of, or in any way endorsing, the reasons for doing so. I already called it "silly" but why should I expect them to care what I think? Better to leave them alone.

The reasons my friends and I split off is because teachers and school officials were uptight about us having some beers and maybe some other stuff. I'll accept any social disapproval of our reasons for splitting off but what we did was our business (well, unless we got caught, ...). In this case, I don't see the need to browbeat people who do their own thing. If someone is racist or anti-gay or anti-Catholic or is really into meth or whatever, I'll think they are being ridiculous but I'm not going to lecture them or care one way or the other. I think it's better when we leave people alone unless they are actively infringing on someone else's rights. I'm not the thought police, and I don't want anyone else to be, and there will always be screwed up people out there.

You don't think that being ostracized or regretting ostracism that you practiced is a life lesson? You don't think it's inevitable? Again, I'm not endorsing or encouraging ostracism by any means - and I get along with just about everybody - but people will always do that. It's a part of life and it will never go away. Deal with it. Be a better person than they are. People who seek out people to ostracize often have far worse issues than those whom they are ostracizing.

But I do have a problem with the teacher here because she shouldn't be influencing this type of behavior. Is she tolerant? Yes, because she's putting up with gay students. Is she compassionate? Sure doesn't sound like it. Is she appropriate? No, because she's using her role to advance an agenda that is hurtful.

What about Eric's comment about the teacher's comparison between gay students and special needs kids? I have to stick up for him here. What I take him to mean is that everyone's struggle is different and that comparisons and labels used in the wrong context cause bad feelings. Calling a special needs kid "gay" or a gay kid "special needs" are fighting words, and it's fighting words if you call a straight guy with a normal IQ either of those things. A gay person shouldn't tell an older black person that he understands what he went through in the 1950s. It's not the same thing. Just as it's not the same to compare slavery to the holocaust to sexual abuse. A teacher should understand this but she went out of her way to offend, and that's wrong.

Those students are actively practicing bigotry and that teacher is enabling and encouraging them. Full stop. Minimizing this as "ostracizing" or "splitting off" or "doing your own thing" or any other inane euphemism is also enabling, in its way. It's just another spin on the noxious "kids will be kids" attitude that rationalizes bullying and worse.

Thanks to the North End Mothers Club and their invite-only cotillion (everyone is invited, as long as their friends with the board, which is made up of the popular kids), I know what it's like to be left out. It sucks.

Invite-only events shouldn't have a place in high schools where everything is close quarters.

If a handful of kids want to do their own thing, fine. Even when it's based on a prejudice, you can't control everyone's opinions or behavior. Once the community starts getting involved, and (indirectly) representatives of the schools, we're on the wrong side of the gray area. The kibosh must be put in place.

So you want to dictate who kids hang out with? If a kid is bigoted or wants to ostracize others, who cares? It's no one's business but his own. You can punish those who infringe on others rights but you can't micromanage someone's social life. Let everyone go his own way.

--Greg: I don't want to "dictate who kids hang out with." But I don't want to enable or encourage their bigotry either. As Jon B. said above, teachers and community representatives should make it clear what side of the line they're on.

ZORN REPLY -- I wonder if Greg would be so blithe about this if the students had announced their intention to hold a private "whites only" prom. Let's make it at a totally private facility, so we don't get into public accommodations and civil rights law.
I don't think the question here is the law, in any event.

Nobody, if the kid keeps his bigotry to himself by refusing to attend school sponsored events where gays are present. But, can the bigots ask a school to sponsor an event that keeps out unwanted students for reasons related to bigotry, or anything else? No.

I completely agree with both of you and my comments have been entirely consistent with that. Pan's earlier comment seemed to go further but it wasn't specific so I asked the question. To be 100% clear myself, I don't advocate enabling bigotry but I do advocate staying out of other's business.

GREG J REPLY TO ERIC --

My answer is no different if students want a whites-only prom. I don't endorse it but it's none of my or anyone else's concern. What about "private" are you not understanding? Same with a non-Catholics only prom. Why do we concern ourselves with others' private actions? Let people be the way they want to be.

ZORN REPLY -- I think we do when they are overt about it because as a society we endeavor to support and endorse certain norms. I realize this can be the road to enforced conformity and worse, but I do think that, for instance, if a guy down the street is holding Klan rallys in his backyard, picketing, protesting etc. is a salutary way to express not a desire to silence the Klan but to express the community's revulsion at such speech and behavior and thereby to marginalize it.
That's how I see the no-gay prom thing -- that it's incumbent on those who find it a revolting idea to stand up and say so, not to shrug. As a matter of decency not as a matter of law.
If it suddenly became legal for restaurants not to serve blacks, I'd join in picketing those restaurants in an effort to discourage the spread of such practices. You would shrug it off. That's the difference between us, I guess.

If the Muslim school is a private institution, then yes, they can do that, just as my private Catholic high school could forbid the pregnant senior in my class from walking at graduation. It's an entirely different set of rules from public education.

If the alternate prom is being arranged and hosted by a group of students, without sanction from the school, and without the participation of teachers who could reasonably be assumed to represent the school, they are within their rights to have what is essentially a private party, however misguided their actions might be.

As for Ms. Medley, her words do call into question whether she is effectively able to perform the duties of her job. I certainly wouldn't want any child of mine who was in some way "different" to have to deal with her.

[I believe that it was life circumstances and they chose to be that way; God created everyone equal," said Medley]

Then why do I wear eyeglasses and can't dunk a basketball? Is she telling me I chose these things?

As for inclusion/exclusion, I have to draw a distinction between school sponsored events (like prom) and privately-sponsored events that might be in poor taste (like the chinese-themed drinking party at Duke). I scrutinize the former and could care less about the latter.

ZORN REPLY -- Why do you choose not to dunk? It's unnatural, I tell you!

I was going to write a long response to your post but haven't had time. But your view basically boils down to "If a kid is bigoted or wants to ostracize others, who cares? It's no one's business but his own."

To which I say: We live in a society. Whether you acknowledge it or not, we do. Bigotry is a problem in our *society.* We all have a stake in it if we want to work toward a fairer, more just society. And to the extent that you deny that we do live in a society (which, by the way, was my first premise, with which you purportedly agreed), your point of view is not based in reality.

Of course we live in a society but it's a free society, and people can think and act as they choose as long as they aren't actively interfering with anyone else.

So how exactly are you going to stop bigotry and ostracism? Are you two going to be the Hangout Police to make sure every kid is invited to every party? Yes, the ideal is that everyone gets along and no one is left out but that's never going to happen.

To be more concrete in my example, when you see a group of high school kids mocking a gay or handicapped or foreign kid who just walked by by what do you do? My bet is you do nothing. When you hear a guy use an anti-gay slur at a sports bar what do you do? You do nothing. When you read comments mocking Catholicism in a blog, you do nothing. What you do in your own comments is tell me we all need to fight bigotry and make everyone get along but in practice I bet you do the same as I do, which is leave bigoted people alone. That's because you know it's best to avoid conflict. That's where I stand too. Trying to force people to socialize in ways they don't want to is futile and creates more conflict than you had originally. That is reality, my friends.

There are places where the public gather like restaurants, stadiums, other public venues (including schools) where bigotry cannot be tolerated and, yes, expectations are people will get along. Your mere existence isn't justification for abuse. I don't buy tolerance forces conflict as an excuse to accept bigoted exclusion.

Actually, I've spoken up in some of the situations you mention. Not all, as I'm admittedly not always willing to be a gadfly for my beliefs (you got me there), but some.

More to the point, though, is that realizing that not everyone is going to go out of their way to combat bigotry, nor are we going to be able to completely solve the problem, is a bit different than asserting that no one should care, because it's no one's business, that others are bigoted. That's your original argument, and it's far more anti-social, in the sense of denying the existence of society. And I'll reiterate my standard rebuttal to the standard "well, it won't completely eliminate every bit of the problem" stuff: Do you refuse to go fishing unless you know you'll catch every fish in the lake?

Wow, such bravery, such internal fortitude. Your parents must be so proud, Greg J. You should really use your actual legal name, so that your co-workers or bosses have the full understanding of just the kind of person you are -- I mean, it isn't like you're saying anything you'd be ashamed of, right?

I completely agree. In those places, I would expect management to intervene if they choose and, if not, their inaction should be made known.

@AReader,

I chose those examples because they are close to the line between private non-harmful actions and actions that could hurt others. If someone is being attacked or berated, then by all means we should intervene. On the other hand, a slur or cruel behavior behind someone's back (my high school kids example), and ostracism are not, in my opinion, worth doing anything about. The line between busybody and stand up person is sometimes hard to draw, but for me it has to do with whether the bigoted actions or words in question are indirect or direct (in other words, passive or active) in nature.

ZORN REPLY -- I think we do when they are overt about it because as a society we endeavor to support and endorse certain norms. I realize this can be the road to enforced conformity and worse, but I do think that, for instance, if a guy down the street is holding Klan rallys in his backyard, picketing, protesting etc. is a salutary way to express not a desire to silence the Klan but to express the community's revulsion at such speech and behavior and thereby to marginalize it.
That's how I see the no-gay prom thing -- that it's incumbent on those who find it a revolting idea to stand up and say so, not to shrug. As a matter of decency not as a matter of law.
If it suddenly became legal for restaurants not to serve blacks, I'd join in picketing those restaurants in an effort to discourage the spread of such practices. You would shrug it off. That's the difference between us, I guess.

GREG J REPLY --

Your response is interesting because, like my last comment, we're trying to find the line between private and public behavior.

I agree with you that the more overt something is, the more obligated we are to speak out about it. I'd add that the more it is directed at a particular person or group of people (not "group" as in "the homosexual community" but an actual group of homosexuals) the more we have an obligation to do something about it.

When someone is using offensive language at a childrens' party or saying misogynistic things to a group of women or berating a person for his sexual orientation, then it's time to step in. However, when someone is engaging in very passive behavior such as refusing to sit next to a certain group, excluding a certain person from a private invitation, or simply wearing a T-shirt that says "I hate ___" then I don't really care to take issue with that person (or group), and I think that doing so is getting into busybody territory. As I pointed out to AReader, there are all kinds of grey situations but I tend to leave people alone unless they are actively bothering someone else.

What if your hypothetical Klan member was holding secret rallies at his house and you just happened to find out? I'd leave him alone. The overtness of his actions dictates the response.

I wonder sometimes about whether those who picket or protest or confront people who have said or done something offensive are doing it to try to change the mind of the offender or whether they are doing it for themselves. I'm also interested by the selectivity of protesters who claim to be doing it to promote basic decency. If one is going to protest a restaurant that decides not to serve blacks, why shouldn't one also protest against locating a mosque at Ground Zero. Both are provocative actions, no? If you disagree, I think it has to be on the grounds that one action is more active or direct than the other (i.e., not serving someone is more direct than the mere presence of a building) - although the "in your face" nature of that particular building at that particular location is perhaps even more disturbing.

My point in all this is that we do have a moral obligation to stick up for someone who is being picked on but we have an equal moral obligation not to pick on people who are doing their own thing without bothering anyone else.

No, it was a comment about the moral/ethical cowardice of that poster, not really about anonymity itself. I don't see the parallel of someone feeling free to spout all kinds of bigotry and prejudice and apathy under a cloak of anonymity -- compared with my own posts.

As I've related previously, I use a cognomen so that there is no argument from authority logical fallacy. One should not accept or reject my comments based on perceived gender, age, income, education, sexual orientation, political/religious affiliation, love/hatred of ketchup, or other non-germane attributes. (This is why I supply links for my statements of facts, and sometimes in support of my opinions.)

About "Change of Subject."

"Change of Subject" by Chicago Tribune op-ed columnist Eric Zorn contains observations, reports, tips, referrals and tirades, though not necessarily in that order. Links will tend to expire, so seize the day. For an archive of Zorn's latest Tribune columns click here. An explanation of the title of this blog is here. If you have other questions, suggestions or comments, send e-mail to ericzorn at gmail.com.
More about Eric Zorn

Contributing editor Jessica Reynolds is a 2012 graduate of Loyola University Chicago and is the coordinator of the Tribune's editorial board. She can be reached at jreynolds at tribune.com.